Dismissed

Jasvir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2008CWP/16475/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging the appointment of a respondent as an Anganwari worker despite a Panch preventing the petitioner's application from being accepted. The Court held the delegation to the CDPO to accept applications directly was valid and upheld the appointment based on the candidate's disability.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jasvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.16475 of 2006 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.16475 of 2007

¶4

Date of decision: 2.9.2008

Jasvir Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Yashwinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5.

¶12

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10^th September, 2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.5, whereby respondent No.6 has been appointed as Anganwari worker. The Director, Social Security and Women and Child Development issued instructions regarding the qualification and mode of recruitment and appointment of Anganwari Workers vide Annexure P-5 dated 9^th January, 2004. Respondent No.5 issued letters to the Gram Panchayat for receiving applications of candidates desirous of being appointed as Anganwari Worker. Various applications were received but the name of respondent No.6 was not there in the Resolution (Annexure P-3), passed by the Gram Panchayat.

¶14

CWP No.16475 of 2006 2

¶15

In reply, the respondents No.4 & 5 have contended that petitioner was daughter-in-law of Angrej Singh, a Panch of the village. Since he was keen that the petitioner be selected as Anganwari Worker, he did not allow application of respondent No.6 to be accepted by the Gram Panchayat. As a result, the respondent No.6 directly sent her application to the answering respondent i.e. Child Development and Project Officer, Bathinda wherein she stated that she was 50% handicapped and her mother was a widow. This apart, she belongs to a poor and backward family and she did not want to be the dependent of her mother. Copy of the application directly sent by respondent No.6 has been annexed as Annexure R5/1 and disability certificate has been annexed as Annexure R5/2 along with the reply.

¶16

Separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein the same stand as that of respondents No.4 and 5, has been reiterated.

¶17

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

¶18

the record.

¶19

It is apparent from the record that the Child Development and Project Officer, Bathinda was competent to receive the application directly in view of the instructions issued in the meeting dated 23^rd November, 2004 by the Director, Social Security and Women and Child Development, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was noted therein that sometimes the Sarpanches and Panches do not accept the applications of the daughters of the opponents. In such situations, the CDPO was granted

¶20

CWP No.16475 of 2006 3

¶21

power to accept the applications directly. In the instant case, it is obvious that the Panch Angrej Singh did not allow the Gram Panchayat to accept the application of the petitioner as he was keen that his daughter-in-law should be appointed as Anganwari Worker. He was well aware of the fact that the petitioner being handicapped would be given preference over respondent No.6, according to the instructions issued by the Punjab Government. Thus, he did not allow the application of the petitioner to be forwarded at all.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find nothing wrong with the action of the Child Development and Project Officer, in entertaining the application directly and appointing the respondent No.6 as Anganwari Worker in view of her 50% disability. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the present case as we find no fault with the appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Worker.

¶23

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶24

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶25

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶26

September 02, 2008. 'rajpal'

Jasvir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Anokh Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harnam Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Dev Narayan Sahni Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Pritam Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.